About your Search

20121226
20130103
STATION
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 5
MSNBCW 3
CNBC 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
WETA 1
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
WUSA (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
at defense and national security as marle the pentagon what. do we need to do from the whole of government standpoint? some of the other departments are being hit harder. state department, for example. >> this is admittedly a weakness of the report. our mandate was to only look at the defense budget. we should be looking at the whole international affairs budget because we have to take a whole of government approach to solving these international problems. the military is not particularly good at some things, where diplomacy or development aid would be much more help. so i would like to see an integrated budget. that's not going to happen. the congress won't allow to the happen. but at least in our thinking, in the administration's thinking, they could pool resources and look at trade- offs between defense and state. >> barry, thanks very much. at least that's a hope for to 13. >> i hope. so thank you very much. >> coming up, how the pentagon and intelligence agencies are exploiting social media. you're watching "this week in defense news." >>> when pentagon officials talk about intelligen
to keep the troops home for good. >> the pentagon came out with new defense guidance in january 2012, which reflected the obama administration's understanding that budgets were going to be constrained first. and that second, the united states would not be likely to fight anymore wars like iraq or afghanistan in the near future, or the next decade or so. >> the point is that the american appetite for global intervention is going to decrease. there aren't many americans that want to keep going in afghanistan after 2014. there aren't many americans that are gonna want to go into iraq even given its importance in terms of global energy and oil. >> i think that reflects an understanding of where the country is. the u.s. whatever you think about how long troops should remain in afghanistan. i think everybody thinks that's enough with that kind of commitment of u.s. forces overseas. >> is our mission to eliminate taliban? it never was our mission. it is nation building? is it sending children to school? is it building sewer systems? is it going after al-qaeda? so, all those factors are comp
. [ sniffles ] ♪ >> harris: breaking news now on the fox report and the pentagon confirming to fox news that retired general norman schwarzkopf has died. he commanded the coalition that pushed saddam hussein's forces out of kuwait in 1991. bob scales on the phone with us now. general scales you wrote a book called certain victory and you have a lot of knowledge of the history of the iraq war but personal knowledge with this man. you call him truly the first great american hero after vietnam. your thoughts? >> that is exactly right, harris. remember, i come from the same generation as general schwarzkopf and the vector was the vindication of my generation report vietnam generation because it was our first great military victory after defeat in vietnam and he took that personally. i knew general schwarzkopf well, going back to his time as a major in the pentagon. he also carried in his sack this rock that had the sigma that went with the defeat in vietnam. when defeated the iraqi military in the plains of iraq, when was able to do that one of the first things he said at the truce tent was
pretty hard things well. one is to lead the pentagon out of afghanistan, lead our military into redefining itself as to what does it do? why do you serve in the post-post-9/11 era? second, lead the country in more defense spending cuts, which is coming. and third thing is really to lead the nation through a discussion of what's our military for in the post-post-9/11 era? what's the role of counterterrorism? what are the limits of counterterrorism? what are we doing in asia? how do we work with our allies in china and asia? where has the pentagon taken powers that maybe need to go back to the civilian agencies? those are three enormous jobs that require you to work well with congress, to work well with the defense industry, to be trusted with our men and women in uniform and to have a really close relationship with the president. that's a big job description. >> so if we paint this sort of job description as guiding the pentagon through that period, it sounds like reimagining. how do you see the strengths and weakness of the front runners? >> the first thing to say about sen
confirmation vote in the senator, the decision to float hagel for the pentagon is having the opposite effect. >> i think this will be a very tough confirmation process. >> a lot of republicans are asking hard questions and i don't think he's going to get many republican votes. i think it would be a challenging nomination. >> in another distress signal for the white house, the former vietnam vet and nebraska senator was unable to secure the backing of the number three democrat in the senate. >> that's his choice. i think once he makes it, his record will be studied carefully, but until that point, i think we're not going to know what's going to happen. >> can you support him? >> i'd have to study his record. i'm not going to comment until the president makes a nomination. >> wow. schumer's was the sign of this nomination's downward trajectory. after watching on tv, mike allen wrote he received an immediate e-mail from an astute republican official saying, pass the jam, he's toast. so is it game over for hagel? the white house certainly seemed to be backtracking this weekend. a senior official
and they will be steep. of the $1.2 trillion in total spending cuts over nine years, $492 billion come from the pentagon. defense analysts say the impact on the military would be serious. >> the pentagon and the department are already in financial trouble. because there has already been $480 billion cut. to take another cut is devastating. >> it will make it channeling for the military to maintain the troops. equipment and preparedness. the larger defense industry also will be hit. >> severe budget cuts could put the natural security at risk if the company that make the f-35 fighter or artillery pieces don't have the money to keep going. >> my district would be adversely affected and defense spending cut by $8 billion. >> how did we get to this place? >> in budget battle, the 2011 spending cut put in as unthinkable trigger to force the lawmakers to find a way to cut spending. so far, they haven't found a way here we are. >> to make it unpalatable, they insist it comes out of the defense budget. conservatives think is much, much, much too har. >> defense secretary leon panetta said the pentagon has been
the pentagon and hard. as you see there, the defense stocks moving a little bit higher today including northrop grumman and lockheed martin. in los angeles with a look at what the deal means at least for two months for the sector, hi jane. >> hi, tyler. kicking the drone down the road. including 55 billion for this year. people forget the pentagon already has about 55 billion in cut in 2013 even without sequester. i know folks getting pink slips. but it is said all of these cuts are not cuts to spending but to funding. meaning the industry wouldn't start to feel it until next year. where? a lot of analyst don't expect cuts to impact multiyear contracts for hardware just because it is too difficult. pentagon just signed two deals with lockheed martin worth almost $9 billion for the f-35. so what is vulnerable? >> i think that the things that will be impacted will be things like training, maintenance, services, those are the shorter lead time items that the dod will be able to control. >> so companies providing those to the service include caci. sai pch booz allen. in the meantime, they had a gre
>> did the pentagon have review? >> no, didn't have fop once i'm retired from active due any i don't have to submit it to the pentagon unless i use classified information. so i avoided using any classified information but a lot of stuff was declassified right after the war. a lot of stuff was a matter of public record. so i had a great deal of material. the best thing i had was this, any war i ever fought most of instructions were sent by message back and forth. so you have hard copy record of every decision made. because of where we are today most of the orders and instructions are seventh back and forth by secured telephone. it became apparent that we're not going have a record of the decisions made unless we have a record ourselves. any time i had a conversation i wrote down what i said and what is being said to me. i had someone in there who would write down every time i made a decision and he would log it into a private journal that we kept of every decision that was happening during the war. if it had not been through that the book would not be written. >> where are those 3,0
of the news and i read a telegram from the pentagon that my unit would be deployed at a certain embarkation point along with the 80 second airborne, but the repeated patrol would stand and become part of the pentagon lower. along convoluted answer to your question but that was it. >> the fact that you selected your particular team and going on to work on disasters around the world after a time in vietnam with the u.s. military and the un, ever seen a situation where the u.n. commander gets to pick the right people so you did the campaign. >> i did. the first sergeant, you say i listened to my assignment, please select -- they knew more than i did about their own men and i had a whole battalion. we were able to get some pretty good people. generally they did their duty. nobody lost their cool. we had one or two close incidents thereafter in front of the cafeteria. i found out they hated the deputy marshals, civilians running around in blue suits, they had a regard for us because we wore a uniform. part of the tradition of the south, patriotism first. they didn't give us too much trouble but
the decision to invade iraq in 2003, but later, criticized the pentagon's war planning. mostly, though, schwarzkopf devoted his time to serving as a board member and spokesman for charitable causes, living quietly in tampa, florida, where he died yesterday at the age of 78. in a statement, the first president bush, now ailing himself, called his gulf war commander "a true american patriot and one of the great military leaders of his generation." for more on general schwarzkopf and his legacy, we are joined by "new york times" reporter michael gordon. he co-authored the book, "the generals' war: the inside story of the conflict in the gulf." michael, welcome. take us back first of all to the gulf war more than two decades ago. what was it about general schwarzkopf and what he did is that made him be regarded at least by many as a hero. >> well, this is the time in which the american military did not have the confidence of the american public the way it does now. whatever people think of the wars in afghanistan or iraq, they generally believe that the military has done its part. and that
in korea because the pentagon says two bridgeway coming or going to embarrass us in congress will start asking nasty questions. so rich i wanted to fire five of the six commanders in korea and they basically told and you can do it, they do it on the down low. pretend it's rotation. they basically say the chief of staff has lied to congress, so keep up the faÇade. release the tradition of relief partly because in the small and popular messy worse, it's harder to know what success looks like. you can be successful. it was clear to me that general petraeus was successful during the search in extricating from iraq, which was his true mission in getting us out of the war in one form or another. we've got an interesting point from a secondary theme of the book, which is civil military discourse. i want to give a shout out to two people, bob obuchi suffered through reading my manuscript twice in the senate general doo boat if he is here. there you are. jim dudek is the exception to every i'm saying tonight about generals by the way. a couple of things about jim dudek district may, now retired
the military loses in korea, because the pentagon says to ridgway, you're going to embarrass us and congress will start asking massive questions, so ridgway wanted to firefight of his division commanders in korea. they basically told and you can do it but do it on the down low. >> pretend its rotation. >> and they basically say, joe collins, the chief of staff is already lied to congress about this, so just keep up the faÇade. we lose the tradition of relief partly because in the small unpopular message boards is harder to know what success looks like. yet you can be successful but it's clear to me i think general petraeus was successful during the surge in extricating the united states from iraq, which i think is true mission. in getting us out of the war in one form or another. you've got an interesting pointer which is a secondary theme of the book which is civil military discourse. i want to give a shout out to two people, bob who suffered through reading my manuscript twice, and lieutenant general jim duquette, if he is here. oh, there you are. gym is the exception to everything i'm sa
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
for them. i was at the pentagon and was there when a colleague of mine got a silver star for his actions in afghanistan. he was clearing a landing zone they called in the medevac he tried to clear the area he steps on one and he lost both legs and a left arm. when i say i am lucky with an average experience he is my reference. he may say he is lucky people put him three tourniquets on him. then we have a memorial in florida where the tax code to school for everyone who died in the line of duty since world war ii. we put more names on the memorial last year since 1945 and 120 since then 11. that number may feel low compared to the thousands we have lost that is 120 brothers and sons and we are a small community. that is the grief you process and your own fear of death and i don't have a good answer to figure that out but i am not sure i did but i tried to weave so as to threats that felt like it was happening at the same time so i would like to read from the beginning of the book to give you a sense of how it feels and running helped me spin as a first thing you should know is i'm crazy.
to the budget of the pentagon and the number of domestic agencies. >> we can come together as democrats and republicans to cut spending and raise revenue in a way that reduces our deficit, protects our middle class, provides ladders into the middle class for everybody who is willing to washing hard. >> despite this bill, your paycheck is a little smaller because a temporary cut in payroll tax expired. the social security will jump back to 6.2% for 160 million americans. it had been 4.2%. some banks say that could cut consumer spending this year. that's less than the 115 to $125 billion in revenue it cost the government each yoor. at the live desk, angie goff, news 4. >>> angie, thank you for that. >>> new york area lawmakers from both parties are furious with house republican leaders. they are angry the current congressional term will end without a vote on aid for victims of hurricane sandy. a house committee drafted a measure to allocate $27 billion for recovery efforts. speaker john boehner says the house won't vote on it before this term ends at noon tomorrow. new york congressman el
part of some last-second deal. hit the defense department. but the pentagon's real problem is not those cuts, but the ones that are going to be coming over the next decade. we talked to military contractors, top officials at the pentagon. they see a long period of downward decline. that after the war in afghanistan, there's going to be a period of austerity. they're calling it -- they have a term around the pentagon, a very graphic self-amputation as they cut back over the years. and this was one of the reasons that president obama had, at the top of his short list, the former republican senator, still a republican, chuck hagel of nebraska. he's somebody who's talked about the pentagon as being bloated, had very specific ideas about how to cut it. but mike, sam, the table, we're hearing that that trial balloon has been popped. that senator hagel has a possibility for secretary of defense, has really lost a lot of altitude. and what they discovered was, there's not a natural constituency for him. republicans, as you guys know, have fought with him over the years. he was against the war i
. that became more and more until the publication of "the pentagon papers." that was a gradual growth come a difference, between the media the new york times" and the administration, and that continues until the state. there is an oscillation between the administration and "the times" depending on the administration. that difference opened up cordially there, and it continued to. the skepticism to the vietnam war, and watergate, which is mostly "washington post" storage, increased trade gradually we have what we have today, an adversarial right fox, adversarial left, msnbc, and cnn, which is trying to be "the new york times," when nobody wants to see a non- adversarial. "the times" is a two-section newspaper, a term that "the times" does not like any more. the editor -- when you use in it, they get a little bit squeamish. some of you i should probably it, one of my sources -- took a great deal of reading the, and interviews. "the times" is generous in giving me access, letting the interview them. mostly, i got this through approaching them and asking them, and one led to the other. approa
. by contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of the pentagon's. secretary gates has spoken about this and strongly urged the congress to address that imbalance. we have not yet. admiral mullen pointed out, the more diplomacy is cut, the more lives are lost. we have to make certain that we are not penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to supporting americas vital overseas interests. adequately funding foreign-policy initiatives is not spending, but investing in our long-term security, and more often or not, it saves far more expensive expenditures in dollars and lives in the conflicts that we fail to see or avoid. we need to invest in america's long-term interest in order to do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. this report makes that crystal clear. since 1985, i have had the privilege of making official journeys to one trouble spot or another. i have met a lot of our men and women in the foreign services. we sat and talked about the work they do and the lives that they lead. they spent years learning the languages of the country so they can be on the fro
grew up on the pentagon papers, the secret history of the war, represent by daniel elsburg, is it true the papers were about vietnam was gaining territory. so perhaps by the '64 election this would have been major issue for kennedy, and he would have had to coming on more hawkish, again. >> counterfactual. we think kennedy had a certain kind of self-confidence. kennedy said at one opinion if somebody argues to me about unemployment, i can refute him. i have no problem. but somebody from the intelligence community or the military comes in, i always assume that they had a special knowledge that i didn't have. he says i've learned different. they really don't. he said at a later point, i'm going to tell my successor that the most important thing he has to learn is not trust the military, not to trust the joint chiefs. kennedy stood up to those people. >> in 2009, obama had the contrary result with the generals pressing him on afghanistan, the surge there. >> do you think -- i want to hear you talk about it -- has foreign policy in a grand sense changed at all since the colored war? it's b
the impact on the military overall will be, quote, very serious. >> the pentagon and the departments are already in financial trouble, because there has already been a $480 billion cut that is being applied right now as we speak. to take another cut on top of that is devastating. >> reporter: it's not just the military itself that will take a hit, also the defense industry, defense contractors, private companies that do work for the pentagon. one democratic congressman in northern virginia whose district maybe hit the hardest by all of this says it could mean layoffs. >> the large defense contractors will probably be okay, they have significant cash reserves, most of them. the smaller contractors would have trouble getting their lines of credit extended, trouble keeping their employees, if they can't be assured of continued employment. >> reporter: congressman moran says if we go over the cliff, which he thinks we will, then the impact and severity of the automatic defense spending cuts depend how long they are in place into the new year before congress finally fixes this fiscal clif
that preparation before running into the pentagon and he has done a is he person job. very tough job. even he said that we face some dire devastating times ahead if sequestration goes ahead. chuck hagel seems to think that we can cut, quote, more the bloat out of the pentagon. there probably is some over there. but you need to understand the system right, given of the republican opposition i don't know that the president gets a lot of credit for bipartisanship. more likely the cuts that they agree on. lt. colonel bob maginnis thanks so much we appreciate it. >> thanks, dave. >> small businesses set to take big hits in 2013. that could take an effect on your wallet. we'll explain next. my pet chicken just saved my life. how this hero bird came to the rescue of an entire family. and that's not even the coolest part of this story. i'm sticking around. mine was earned off vietnam in 1968. over the south pacific in 1943. i got mine in iraq, 2003. usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because offers a superior level of protection, and because usaa's commitment to serve
over its price. but lockheed and the pentagon have come to terms to buy another round of the jets for nearly $4 billion. morgan stanley calls the f-35 the single most important investment debate over lockheed stock. second, cash will be king. as defense spending slows, analysts say many defense companies will reduce share buyback programs and conservative capital. and look to international customers to make up for lost business at home. third, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's big brother. as criticism rises over the use of drone strikes by the obama administration, look to see companies launching drone war at home for deals to build unmanned aircraft for domestic use. the faa says there could be 30,000 uavs in u.s. skies by 2020. the teal group says domestic drones could be worth $89 billion over ten years, as everyone from homeland security to tmz wants permission to use them. >>> let's get some more insight on the defense skprkt how to play it as the fiscal cliff deadline grows closer. howard rubel is with jeffries. great to speak with you. and i guess key to understanding the im
sister that would cut half a bill kwroepb dollars from pentagon spending. the investment community seems to like it, the dow up 219 points. we'll keep and eye on it. >> reporter: the control room a brand-new hour straight ahead for ou. as you saw the markets enjoying the deal hashed out last night, lawmakers steering us away from the fiscal cliff but no shortage of road blocks on the horizon. what it all means, what is next for taxpayers, 77% of whom will see their taxes go up now. some of taxes tied to obama care new portions of the law kicking in on january 1st, a live report on who is paying more and for what. wait until you hear about a brand-new lawsuit that is being filed by a convicted killer who says the beer made me do it. he says the beer makers should have warned him that he'd become addicted and would go on to lead a life of crime. really? all of that and breaking news in the second hour of "happening now" now starts right now. jon: hi noon here on the east coast, there is new fallout from the fiscal cliff deal with tax times ahead. i'm jon scott. jenna: i'm jenna lee. we are
obligations. it's working for pentagon contractors, for oil companies, for coal companies. it's for those who want to hold down wages and suppress the rights of workers. it's working for the drug companies who sweet our deal on the prescription drugs and blew the hole in the medicare budget. this masks the reality that the fax resources of government increasingly are going to the highest bidders and a $4 billion national election. the debris at the bottom of the fiscal cliff will be the hopes of doctors of medicare patients, unemployed workers, middle class taxpayers who can't pay any more. our nation pose that the fiscal cliff is proof of the necessity of a constitutional amendment. h.j.res. 100, to rid this nation of the corrupting influence of special interest money with public financing which re-creates a true government of the people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: witho
with the cuts that would hit the pentagon. it may be difficult to rally republican votes if they cannot turn off the sequester. and the democratic side, the estate tax could be a problem. republicans are insisting that the estate tax stay at current .evels, which is exemp many democrats would like to see -- in january, it is scheduled to go up automaticalldramatically. most democrats want to see something in the middle. they are adamant that we cannot exempt states as large as $5 million. >> lori montgomery, do we expect anything going on today, and if not, when is the earliest the senators will come back and recession tomorrow? >> the senate is due back in at 1:00. the house is due in at 6:30. the house is the big question mark here. as for today, it is an excellent question. the senate is not in. the house is not in. my understanding is we're going to have basically everyone working quietly to see if we can reach an agreement co. i will be interesting to see if they give us any information today. >> lori montgomery of the "washington post." find her articles at wp.com. >> both chambers of cong
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)